Bug 2338432

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8521515
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2338432-sblg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08521515-sblg/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=127943213

Updated spec to ensure Fedora linker flags are used

spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/sblg.spec
srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/sblg-0.6.1-1.fc42.src.rpm

Created attachment 2073945 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8521515 to 8573782

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8573782
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2338432-sblg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08573782-sblg/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

I'll review this one.

Looks good enough to me. Here is my formal 

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.

^^^ false positive

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (ISC).
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[+]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise (see
     note about nonstandard build system).
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package does not contain a desktop file (not a GUI application).
[-]: No separate development files.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: The package is not a rename of another package.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package does not contain a systemd file(s).
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 538 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: I did not test if the package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged (0.6.1).
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify.
[?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds into binary rpms
     on all supported architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: sblg-0.6.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          sblg-doc-0.6.1-1.fc42.noarch.rpm
          sblg-0.6.1-1.fc42.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpva47oewi')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

sblg-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/sblg/examples/photos-grid/README.md /usr/share/doc/sblg/examples/photos-column/README.md
sblg-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/sblg/examples/photos-grid/photo.xml /usr/share/doc/sblg/examples/photos-column/photo.xml
sblg.spec:49: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: sblg-debuginfo-0.6.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpbcwcne_3')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 3

sblg-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/sblg/examples/photos-grid/README.md /usr/share/doc/sblg/examples/photos-column/README.md
sblg-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/sblg/examples/photos-grid/photo.xml /usr/share/doc/sblg/examples/photos-column/photo.xml
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/kristapsdz/sblg/archive/VERSION_0_6_1/sblg-VERSION_0_6_1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f5db8c1fed5276aa90e58eea53c3cbe5e81f123057240191a8fc86a8404627d3
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f5db8c1fed5276aa90e58eea53c3cbe5e81f123057240191a8fc86a8404627d3


Requires
--------
sblg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libexpat.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

sblg-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
sblg:
    sblg
    sblg(x86-64)

sblg-doc:
    sblg-doc



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2338432-sblg/srpm/sblg.spec	2025-01-27 18:49:13.944770428 +0100
+++ /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2338432-sblg/srpm-unpacked/sblg.spec	2025-01-26 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 1;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 Name:           sblg
 Version:        0.6.1
@@ -61,3 +71,6 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Sun Jan 26 2025 John Doe <packager> - 0.6.1-1
+- Uncommitted changes
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2338432
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: fonts, R, Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell, Python, Java, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


I don't see any issues so this package is 

================
=== APPROVED ===
================

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sblg

Thanks for the review.
https://release-monitoring.org/project/376606/

FEDORA-2025-491e26fd39 (sblg-0.6.1-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-491e26fd39

FEDORA-2025-491e26fd39 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-491e26fd39 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-491e26fd39

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2025-491e26fd39 (sblg-0.6.1-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.